A tiny effect at most: breast cancer in 2.2% of women who'd had a kid, versus 1.9% in women who hadn't. 'This data should not be used to influence decisions about childbearing' But then why publish anti-natalist clickbait scare-stories?
-
-
-
Do these people even do stats on the data? How big must that sample size have been to get a significant difference between 1.9% and 2.2%?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Also contravenes a massive weight of well established research which says precisely the opposite.pic.twitter.com/HwFmaZlsMH
-
That’s the last thing I remember hearing as well. Why is it that studies show opposite results every decade or so?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Interesting, but then there’s this:https://www.breastcancer.org/research-news/breastfeeding-and-pregnancy-improve-survival …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Petsmart. They are hoping people will continue to choose pets for their “babies” ;).
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
Constantly blaming natural things to distract from the real causes. Like aluminum exposure.....
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Planned Parenthood must have funded this ridiculously flawed study! What happened to previous studies that have shown women who have given birth are protected from some cancers?!!!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.